RE: Issue on filter-rules-01

[<jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com>]

I would be very fine with "SHOULD NOT" in both drafts. I was just in
an impression after the RADEXT meeting that "MUST NOT" was preferred.

Cheers,
	Jouni 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: 10. marraskuuta 2006 20:26
> To: Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Issue on filter-rules-01
> 
> Maybe they both should be "SHOULD NOT be sent".  That way if 
> a Diameter gateway sends both they will both be passed 
> through to RADIUS.
> 
> 
> >From: <jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com>
> >To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
> >Subject: Issue on filter-rules-01
> >Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:17:44 +0100
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >In section 2.5 there's the following text:
> >
> >          Filter-ID (11) and NAS-Traffic-Rule both define 
> how filters are
> >
> >          to be applied in the NAS. These attributes are not 
> intended to
> >          be used concurrently and SHOULD NOT appear in the 
> same RADIUS
> >          message. Only one type of filtering attribute must be
> >          processed. If a Filter-ID (11) is present, then the NAS-
> >          Traffic-Rule MUST be ignored, if present.
> >
> >I think this text should be align with the equivalent text in
> >the radext-filter-05 draft. So the text saying
> >   "..SHOULD NOT appear in the same RADIUS message." should be
> >   "..MUST NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet." right?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >	Jouni
> >
> >--
> >to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
> >the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
> 
> 
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>